coeyagi:Nor do I. Nor does any sane person. So why not just argue with the specific measures that would actually have a chance of a) passing, if they were legislation-based or b) actually making a dent in the problem? I am pretty lib and not a fan of guns in general (though, ironically, I was one an NRA-certified instructor, but hey, I needed a job), but I am also a realist. Here, why not respond to my trademarked "4 pillars of Diminishing Mass Shootings":

1) The Drug Trade2) Mental Health Care and Reducing Mental Illness3) Sensationalization of These Crimes in the Media4) The Glorification of Gun Culture

You tackle those 4 very difficult problems, you've got a real decrease in gun violence. And the gun nuts can keep flexing their cock extenders.

Yes, and I agree with these "4 pillars of Diminishing Mass Shootings". I am in general in agreement with most of the viewpoints regarding this. I think you and I got tangled up in me addressing the minority. While I am fairly liberal, I do like my option to have a firearm. I normally don't bite on stupid posts like the one mentioned in the beginning of this thread, however, since it was liberal leaning maybe I didn't realize it was a troll since the trolls on this site are usually so far right.

guestguy:Dimensio: As rifles of any type are less commonly utilized to commit murder than are unarmed attacks, your proposal does not solve a pertinent problem. Your suggestion is entirely unreasonable.

So that's the second time you've said that in this thread...are you really this farking dense? What is the ratio of rifle owners to people who own HANDS?

You know what is damn near impossible for an unarmed nutbag to do? Walk into a school and slaughter nearly 30 people.

chuckufarlie is advocating prohibiting civilian ownership of a subclass of rifles. Noting the rare criminal misuse of rifles is relevant in addressing his suggestion. I am not suggesting that an individual may attempt mass murder while unarmed, I am noting only that prohibiting ownership of many common rifle models will not reduce rates of violent crime.

urbangirl:Dimensio: urbangirl: What exactly is "the gun show loophole"?

The way I understand it is that sellers at these events are waived from normal requirements regarding background checks, waiting periods, etc.

You are mistaken. Federal law requires that federally licensed sellers conduct a NICS-based background check on any prospective firearm purchaser regardless of where the firearm is transferred. A majority of firearm sellers at gun shows are licensed sellers.

Federal law also prohibits the transfer of firearms between residents of different states, regardless of where the transfer may occur.

Federal law cannot regulate the private transfer of firearms between residents of a single state within that state, as such a transfer is intrastate commerce. Only individual states may regulate such transfers; some do, though some do not.

OK, you're obviously better informed than I am. So what is the "gun show loophole"? Please don't tell me it doesn't exist because I've heard the term from numerous sources. Everybody can't be making it up.

You're right, clearly it's something that exists and is a problem. It's on the internet, after all....

bulldg4life:If Adam Lanza had violently attacked 30 people with a knife, do you think he would've killed 26 people?

If they were little kids trapped where they couldn't get away from him? Yes, he easily could. The man in China attacked students at the schoolyard gate, and I have no doubts he could have racked up a large bodycount if he had managed to trap a group of children in a room with him.

Actually, that's unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court:Held:...3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)

Any storage requirement that puts the guns out of immediate use within the home is unconstitutional.

change the Constitution.

Geotpf's Law:

If your solution to a problem requires a Constitutional Amendment, you don't actually have a solution to said problem.

The Second Amendment is not going to be repealed. In fact, amending the Constitution is so politically difficult at this point in time I predict it will not happen again during my lifetime.

Mouldy Squid:This is more or less Canada's path. I can own just about any kind of firearm I want (and several which are illegal in some of your States), but I must submit to background checks, waiting periods, training courses (2 if you want handguns and "assault" rifles), licensing and my firearms must be stored in a specific manner and transported in a specific manner with all the relevant paperwork and licenses accompanying the firearm. Oh, and the RCMP can inspect my home at any time to ensure that I am storing them correctly.

bulldg4life:Zeno-25: An Assault Weapons Ban would not have prevented this mass shooting or most others that have happened. Columbine, VA Tech, Tucson, Aurora, you name it was done with a semi-auto handgun, not an assault rifle.

A 223 Bushmaster is a semi-auto handgun?

Lanza had three semi-auto handguns on him as well as the AR. He would have killed just as many people without an assault rifle, as many other mass shooters already have.

But don't let facts get in the way of the big anti-assault rifle circle jerk going on lately.

If your solution to a problem requires a Constitutional Amendment, you don't actually have a solution to said problem.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

orclover:chuckufarlie: All that is needed is a law that bans all rifles that use a magazine or a clip. That is not difficult to understand and it eliminates the problem of automatic weapons in the hands of civilians.

Good luck with that. They are technically semi-automatic. If he had used a automatic rifle then he likely would have killed off the entire school. However the permits required to get a automatic legally are likely what you are really shooting for in a semi-auto, but honestly nobody in this thread cares. Banning the future sale of semi-auto's may seem to make a difference until you take into account how many semi-auto's are actually currently in circulation. Even with inflated prices due to a ban on new weapons a family such as the one involved in this incident could easily afford a legal pre-ban rifle. You could keep it out of the hands of a poverty stuck gun nut like sideshow bob, but he didnt use a assault rifle did he?I'm a monster you see, I dont care. Ban them, dont ban them, scream and holler and do your best to fight the great satan of the week/month, whatever. Its amusing to watch. Dance you monkeys dance! In a decade you will not have changed a damned thing.

Well, if you spend all of your time and energy on Fark, you may be correct, I would suggest that you contact all of your political leaders.

BTW, he did not kill all of the students at the school because the teachers were able to hide many of them.

We need to ban all rifles that use clips/magazines and make owning them illegal. We need to get all of them removed from society.

NEDM:If they were little kids trapped where they couldn't get away from him? Yes, he easily could. The man in China attacked students at the schoolyard gate, and I have no doubts he could have racked up a large bodycount if he had managed to trap a group of children in a room with him.

They weren't just little kids trapped in a room. There were 6 adults involved.

If you feel the same tragedy would've occurred if he had a knife, you are either willfully ignorant or incredibly dense.

InmanRoshi:LouDobbsAwaaaay: A guy walking into an elementary school with a pair of handguns and murdering 20 kids and 8 adults doesn't strike me as an indictment of our failure to pass a comprehensive assault weapons ban. It's an indictment of our healthcare system. If you want to make it easy for people to buy guns, then you have to make it even easier for people to seek medical help for mental disorders. Otherwise the nutcases will deal with their problems using the former rather than the latter. It seems pretty straight-forward.

The United States spends 5.6 percent of its health care budget on mental health treatment, which is on par with other developed nations.

Meanwhile, 15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.

Other developed nations have comprehensive, universal care. The US is unique in the fact that it provides the least amount of care for the highest possible cost.

BMulligan:At one time, the NRA was about responsible gun ownership and heartily endorsed reasonable gun control measures such as the National Firearms Act of 1934. It was only in the 1970s that the NRA took on its current absolutist approach to the Second Amendment. It was this turn of events that led conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger to say that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word 'fraud' - on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

I would have been amenable to that before I became a historian. The NRA is wrong on the "bear" part, but completely right on the "keep" part.

BMulligan:At one time, the NRA was about responsible gun ownership and heartily endorsed reasonable gun control measures such as the National Firearms Act of 1934. It was only in the 1970s that the NRA took on its current absolutist approach to the Second Amendment. It was this turn of events that led conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger to say that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word 'fraud' - on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

I would hardly call the NFA reasonable in how it treats safety equipment and SBRs....

Cradle to grave strict liability on guns used in a crime (including suicides and accidental discharges by children). Absolute strict no excuses liability for actual damages, plus an immediate five or six figure fine, secured by filed evidence of financial means or a bond/insurance policy, with immediate payment required (at least of the fine) through the bond/insurance/security. The manufacturer has this liability for each new gun they make until it is sold to a reseller/dealer who must affirmatively relieve the manufacturer of the liability and take it on themselves (to the satisfaction of the new bondsman/insurer). This is repeated down to the current owner. Gun stolen? Tough - you remain liable forever. You want an insurer or bondsman to underwrite you, better reduce your risk of any kind of downstream issues (gun safes, training, etc.). Fines can vary based on any number of factors (type of weapon, size of magazine, use of gun safe, trigger locks, etc.). Granted this is forward looking only, so there isn't much you can do with existing guns in private hands (although that's not necessarily the case, and you can certainly impose this on dealers with all sales going forward), but the incentives change in a hurry - everyone involved would want to sell to responsible dealers and owners only, and the private marketplace of insurers and bondsmen would quickly develop and implement a best practices solution for minimizing the risk of mis-used guns.

The way I understand it is that sellers at these events are waived from normal requirements regarding background checks, waiting periods, etc.

You are mistaken. Federal law requires that federally licensed sellers conduct a NICS-based background check on any prospective firearm purchaser regardless of where the firearm is transferred. A majority of firearm sellers at gun shows are licensed sellers.

So some sellers are not licensed, and are not required to conduct background checks.

Federal law also prohibits the transfer of firearms between residents of different states, regardless of where the transfer may occur.

But since private sales have no background checks, its pretty easy to fool the seller on that one.

Federal law cannot regulate the private transfer of firearms between residents of a single state within that state, as such a transfer is intrastate commerce. Only individual states may regulate such transfers; some do, though some do not.

urbangirl:Assault weapons and high-cap mags can't be used for hunting and are a poor choice for self-protection. THEY ARE GOOD FOR NOTHING BUT KILLING A LOT OF PEOPLE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

[Citation Needed]

They are fun to shoot at a gun range. Plus, the term "assault weapon" is completely meaningless. The Bushmaster used in the massacre is not legally an "assault weapon", although weapons with identical stopping power (but cosmetically different) are.

bulldg4life:NEDM: No, I'm saying that it isn't any better or preferable at all.. A violent attack by a maniac is still a freaking violent attack by a maniac, and that saying "But he didn't kill anyone!" misses the point entirely that a madman still randomly attacked a group of schoolchildren.

If Adam Lanza had violently attacked 30 people with a knife, do you think he would've killed 26 people?

I think a fit 20 year old could attack 30-some first graders with a knife and kill most of them, certainly.

Actually, that's unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court:Held:...3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition-in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute-would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)

Any storage requirement that puts the guns out of immediate use within the home is unconstitutional.

change the Constitution.

Geotpf's Law:

If your solution to a problem requires a Constitutional Amendment, you don't actually have a solution to said problem.

The Second Amendment is not going to be repealed. In fact, amending the Constitution is so politically difficult at this point in time I predict it will not happen again during my lifetime.

all I can say is that you are obviously an idiot. We can change the Constitution or we can write a very precise law to eliminate automatic rifles.

But to say that it cannot be done so we should do nothing is just condemning a lot more people to be killed by a spree killer. I am not willing to sit by and do nothing.

A better mental health system would not have stopped this massacre (even though it's a real good idea which costs lots of government money that the Republicans won't be willing to spend). The shooter's mother was perfectly sane, even if she was a "doomsday prepper", and the son might have been "mildly autistic", but that's not "insane", legally (there is no indication anybody had worries about him). Now, obviously, he was insane, but having the government know that ahead of time is not always going to happen-plus he wasn't even the owner of the fire arms in question-his mother was.

Tactically, politically you could use this and the threat of, well, annoying the NRA to the advantage of healthcare and force the GoP to put their money where their rhetoric is. Cut back on the gun banning legislation (down to the old "ban" for 10 years fer instance) in exchange for votes to pass huge increases in mental health spending to bring back the psychiatric care we had pre-Reagan funded with increased BamaCare amendments and funding. They could do this and probably get what they want, in a just world.

However the GoP WANT ban's pushed forward, it serves their agenda much more than the democrats. It gives them something to fight, something to fundraise against. Hell the NRA must be creaming their jeans over the thought of how many new members they will be getting in the next few years.

sprawl15:urbangirl: Assault weapons and high-cap mags can't be used for hunting and are a poor choice for self-protection.

What, in your words, is an 'assault weapon'? Be specific.

See, that's a standard NRA tactic; get people to specifically define "assault weapon" and then go all strawman on them by pointing out "oh, pull the trigger, fire a round, you just banned revolvers", or "barrel length? Your son's BB gun is now an assault weapon", or "carries more than 10 rounds? Some pistols do that."

Want my definition? If the military uses the weapon, and the company sells a "civilianized" version of it, and it has semi-auto capability, then it's an assault weapon and civilians have no need for them. Don't give me that "well that means old M1's are assault weapons" or "your daddy's deer rifle is an assault rifle" crap either. We're talking about the guns companies sell "to get your man card back", as the Bushmaster ad indicates. The ones that kill lots of people quickly and are nearly useless for any other reason (and no, I don't consider wasting money at a firing range with one a good reason either).

You want to shoot a semi-auto civilianized version of a military weapon? Write the law so shooting ranges are the ONLY place that can own them, and legislate the hell out of them as well. Then go have your fun.

Sandusky Knows Best:coeyagi: Nor do I. Nor does any sane person. So why not just argue with the specific measures that would actually have a chance of a) passing, if they were legislation-based or b) actually making a dent in the problem? I am pretty lib and not a fan of guns in general (though, ironically, I was one an NRA-certified instructor, but hey, I needed a job), but I am also a realist. Here, why not respond to my trademarked "4 pillars of Diminishing Mass Shootings":

1) The Drug Trade2) Mental Health Care and Reducing Mental Illness3) Sensationalization of These Crimes in the Media4) The Glorification of Gun Culture

You tackle those 4 very difficult problems, you've got a real decrease in gun violence. And the gun nuts can keep flexing their cock extenders.

Yes, and I agree with these "4 pillars of Diminishing Mass Shootings". I am in general in agreement with most of the viewpoints regarding this. I think you and I got tangled up in me addressing the minority. While I am fairly liberal, I do like my option to have a firearm. I normally don't bite on stupid posts like the one mentioned in the beginning of this thread, however, since it was liberal leaning maybe I didn't realize it was a troll since the trolls on this site are usually so far right.

Fair enough. I am just trying (probably also with equal futility) to steer discourse to something meaningful. Anyone who posts "ZOMG Guns Don't Kill People!" Facebook Infographics or those advocating for the repeal of the 2nd amendment need to return to a place I like to call 2012. No one is going to repeal shiat, people.

Just watched Lincoln. Thaddeus Stevens, a fervent abolitionist played by Tommy Lee Jones, is getting goaded by the Democrats to go all frothy on the House floor to say that all slaves are in fact created equal rather than say that they should be treated equal under the law. He eventually caved and said they were equal under the law despite having an African-American mistress and not believing they were only just equal under the law.

He saw the reality of the times and said what he had to make the necessary baby steps towards universal racial equality.

In a complex issue without any sort of moral rectitude behind it, what makes anyone think there will be unilateral movement in either direction? Let's do what we can, folks, not what we think should be done but can't in the place called 2012.

The only ban that would ban something that is functionally the same, and not just scary-looking, is an absolute ban on semi-automatic weapons of any kind, including semi-automatic handguns and revolvers. Because you have to ban not just what exists, but possible innovations as well.

NEDM:bulldg4life:If Adam Lanza had violently attacked 30 people with a knife, do you think he would've killed 26 people?

If they were little kids trapped where they couldn't get away from him? Yes, he easily could. The man in China attacked students at the schoolyard gate, and I have no doubts he could have racked up a large bodycount if he had managed to trap a group of children in a room with him.

Unemployedingreenland:Cradle to grave strict liability on guns used in a crime (including suicides and accidental discharges by children). Absolute strict no excuses liability for actual damages, plus an immediate five or six figure fine, secured by filed evidence of financial means or a bond/insurance policy, with immediate payment required (at least of the fine) through the bond/insurance/security. The manufacturer has this liability for each new gun they make until it is sold to a reseller/dealer who must affirmatively relieve the manufacturer of the liability and take it on themselves (to the satisfaction of the new bondsman/insurer). This is repeated down to the current owner. Gun stolen? Tough - you remain liable forever. You want an insurer or bondsman to underwrite you, better reduce your risk of any kind of downstream issues (gun safes, training, etc.). Fines can vary based on any number of factors (type of weapon, size of magazine, use of gun safe, trigger locks, etc.). Granted this is forward looking only, so there isn't much you can do with existing guns in private hands (although that's not necessarily the case, and you can certainly impose this on dealers with all sales going forward), but the incentives change in a hurry - everyone involved would want to sell to responsible dealers and owners only, and the private marketplace of insurers and bondsmen would quickly develop and implement a best practices solution for minimizing the risk of mis-used guns.

what a wonderful idea! I am sure that nobody is going to go kill a lot of people if they know that they will face a stiff financial penalty. We should ask the latest shooter what he thinks about this and see...

Oh wait, he killed himself. So much for imposing a fine.

People who care so little for human life that they shoot children down in bunches are not going to be stopped by a fine.

bulldg4life:If you feel the same tragedy would've occurred if he had a knife, you are either willfully ignorant or incredibly dense.

And you still missed my initial point that while it wouldn't have been the same tragedy, it would still have been one, and that school stabbings are in no way shape or form an acceptable alternative to school shootings, especially when an option is to try stop school attacks period. Kids are still getting hurt. Yes, I know that "only" getting stabbed is better than being shot and killed, but why the hell should anyone be forced to deal with either of them? It is still a traumatic experience, and we should be working to stop it from happening in the first place, not just making it so they only suffer a "lesser" traumatic experience.

Bendal:Want my definition? If the military uses the weapon, and the company sells a "civilianized" version of it, and it has semi-auto capability, then it's an assault weapon and civilians have no need for them.

Your standard is arbitrary and unreasonable. Prohibiting firearms based solely upon cosmetic appearance serves no purpose.

Dimensio:urbangirl: Dimensio: urbangirl: What exactly is "the gun show loophole"?

The way I understand it is that sellers at these events are waived from normal requirements regarding background checks, waiting periods, etc.

You are mistaken. Federal law requires that federally licensed sellers conduct a NICS-based background check on any prospective firearm purchaser regardless of where the firearm is transferred. A majority of firearm sellers at gun shows are licensed sellers.

Federal law also prohibits the transfer of firearms between residents of different states, regardless of where the transfer may occur.

Federal law cannot regulate the private transfer of firearms between residents of a single state within that state, as such a transfer is intrastate commerce. Only individual states may regulate such transfers; some do, though some do not.

OK, you're obviously better informed than I am. So what is the "gun show loophole"? Please don't tell me it doesn't exist because I've heard the term from numerous sources. Everybody can't be making it up.

Typically, the claim of a "gun show loophole" is a reference to the fact that federal law does not (and, Constitutionally, cannot) regulate the transfer of firearms between two non-seller citizens within a single state. This condition is claimed to be a "gun show" loophole in part because sometimes private sellers sell firearms at such venues (though the majority of sellers at such venues are not private sellers) and as a means to imply that "gun shows" are a serious problem meriting legislative attention when in fact no data shows that they are a common source of firearms for criminals.

Bullshiat. Since 1986, federal law has permitted licensed firearms dealers to make sales without background checks so long as the transaction occurs away from the dealer's principle place of business. This is under federal law, mind you - several states have more restrictive statutes (the vitality of which may be subject to debate pursuant to the Supreme Court's ridiculous decision in McDonald). That's part of the reason, along with private sales, why 40% of the legally purchased firearms in this country were sold with no background check.

bulldg4life:Mouldy Squid: This is more or less Canada's path. I can own just about any kind of firearm I want (and several which are illegal in some of your States), but I must submit to background checks, waiting periods, training courses (2 if you want handguns and "assault" rifles), licensing and my firearms must be stored in a specific manner and transported in a specific manner with all the relevant paperwork and licenses accompanying the firearm. Oh, and the RCMP can inspect my home at any time to ensure that I am storing them correctly.

Sounds like this is the legislation that the US needs.

Again, how would that have helped here? The mother owned the weapons and would have passed all of those checks (including the training, she apparently spent a lot of time at the range). Should those checks extend to everyone who could potentially have access to the household where the weapons are kept?

NEDM:And you still missed my initial point that while it wouldn't have been the same tragedy, it would still have been one, and that school stabbings are in no way shape or form an acceptable alternative to school shootings, especially when an option is to try stop school attacks period. Kids are still getting hurt. Yes, I know that "only" getting stabbed is better than being shot and killed, but why the hell should anyone be forced to deal with either of them? It is still a traumatic experience, and we should be working to stop it from happening in the first place, not just making it so they only suffer a "lesser" traumatic experience.

Then you should phrase your responses better.

Saying "is it really that much better" when 26 people were killed vs 20 people wounded is pretty silly.

LandOfChocolate:Again, how would that have helped here? The mother owned the weapons and would have passed all of those checks (including the training, she apparently spent a lot of time at the range). Should those checks extend to everyone who could potentially have access to the household where the weapons are kept?

Well, the person states that the RCMP can inspect the home to make sure the weapons are stored correctly.

Dimensio:chuckufarlie: We need to ban all rifles that use clips/magazines and make owning them illegal. We need to get all of them removed from society.

Your proposal remains unreasonable and irrational.

Not at all. Those rifles serve no purpose beyond killing lots of people. Sane, rational people understand this. The idea that we should allow people to own weapons capable of killing large groups of people in a hurry is just crazy.

Dimensio:chuckufarlie: We need to ban all rifles that use clips/magazines and make owning them illegal. We need to get all of them removed from society.

Your proposal remains unreasonable and irrational.

I think it's worth a go. Make it clear to everyone where all the states stand. It's hard to imagine getting 37 states to ratify the amendment, but so long as one doesn't make the same mistake the ERA made, it might happen eventually. But it surely won't if you never start.

dittybopper:bulldg4life: NEDM: No, I'm saying that it isn't any better or preferable at all.. A violent attack by a maniac is still a freaking violent attack by a maniac, and that saying "But he didn't kill anyone!" misses the point entirely that a madman still randomly attacked a group of schoolchildren.

If Adam Lanza had violently attacked 30 people with a knife, do you think he would've killed 26 people?

I think a fit 20 year old could attack 30-some first graders with a knife and kill most of them, certainly.

That sort of thing happens in China and in Indonesia and other places where guns are largely unavailable.

Also, other school killings have been done with bombs (Bath school disaster) and gasoline (Shiguan kindergarten attack).

I literally cannot believe people keep trying to make this point. It boggles my mind.

Bendal:See, that's a standard NRA tactic; get people to specifically define "assault weapon" and then go all strawman on them by pointing out "oh, pull the trigger, fire a round, you just banned revolvers", or "barrel length? Your son's BB gun is now an assault weapon", or "carries more than 10 rounds? Some pistols do that."

Asking someone to define their terms is a horrible partisan tactic?

Bendal:If the military uses the weapon, and the company sells a "civilianized" version of it, and it has semi-auto capability, then it's an assault weapon and civilians have no need for them.

That's so ludicrously meaningless a definition that it kind of proves my point for me. You're basically defining 'assault weapons' as 'whatever is scary'. Take your definition - the semi-auto AR-15 is based off a military weapon, sure. But the M&P15 is based off the semi-auto AR-15 and isn't a civilianized version of anything, despite being practically identical. Semi-auto AR-15's chambered in .22 rimfire wouldn't be used by a military on the planet, yet would be banned.

That's why it's important to actually know what the fark you're talking about. An 'assault weapon' is pretty much by definition a cosmetic thing. And people advocating 'assault weapons' bans are simply advocating 'scary looking guns' bans. Might as well ban any guns with a matte black finish because militaries use matte black a lot.

NEDM:bulldg4life:If Adam Lanza had violently attacked 30 people with a knife, do you think he would've killed 26 people?

If they were little kids trapped where they couldn't get away from him? Yes, he easily could. The man in China attacked students at the schoolyard gate, and I have no doubts he could have racked up a large bodycount if he had managed to trap a group of children in a room with him.

The guy in China WOUNDED 2o people, he did not kill them. The guy in Connecticut did not trap the students in a room. So, besides that, you got it right.

It is much easier to get away from an attacker with a knife than it is to get away from an attacker with a gun.

chuckufarlie:what a wonderful idea! I am sure that nobody is going to go kill a lot of people if they know that they will face a stiff financial penalty. We should ask the latest shooter what he thinks about this and see...

Oh wait, he killed himself. So much for imposing a fine.

People who care so little for human life that they shoot children down in bunches are not going to be stopped by a fine.

I think the intent there is for the original gun owner to insure their arms are not accessible by others. A lot of school shootings were with stolen arms, like those two kids who stole their grandfather the park-ranger's rifles to shoot up their middle school.